Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #674030 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-01 15:10 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-09 13:07 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 300 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:10 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-01 17:33 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:36 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 16:01 +0000
Re: Job interview Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-01 10:02 -0700
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-01 19:22 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 21:09 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 06:32 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 10:27 +0000
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-02 11:21 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:27 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 13:33 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:41 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 13:53 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:57 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 14:14 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:17 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 14:27 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:35 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 15:39 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 13:45 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 16:19 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 14:25 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 16:41 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 14:45 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 17:07 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 15:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 17:28 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 15:32 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 18:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 15:40 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 13:43 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:09 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:15 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:30 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:33 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:49 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:51 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 19:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:54 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-04 13:10 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 11:19 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-04 16:12 +0200
Re: Job interview nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-02 14:09 +0200
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-02 23:47 +0200
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 06:40 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 10:04 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 12:46 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 10:56 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 13:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 11:11 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 12:51 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 19:48 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:57 +0000
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 20:21 +0000
Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:18 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 12:03 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 07:07 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-07 23:03 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 10:32 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 10:46 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 16:34 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-09 10:18 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 13:14 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 06:42 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 10:24 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 14:36 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 18:31 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 17:52 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 17:58 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 20:10 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 21:05 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 23:30 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Randell Frukalov <rada@ovled.ru> - 2026-10-13 22:07 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-13 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 10:44 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 16:34 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 14:51 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 17:29 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 15:31 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 17:37 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 15:48 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:04 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:19 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:29 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:34 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:51 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:53 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 19:06 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 22:19 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 07:05 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 09:29 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 11:51 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:07 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:23 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:27 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:40 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:44 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:52 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:54 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:01 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:01 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:04 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:06 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:11 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:21 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:14 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:17 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:27 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:29 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:39 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:56 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:09 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:12 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:20 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:22 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:27 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:28 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:37 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:39 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:41 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:42 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:54 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:56 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:15 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:25 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:36 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:40 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:45 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:51 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:58 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:59 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:05 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:08 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:13 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:14 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:20 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:26 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:28 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:31 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:41 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:43 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:48 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:50 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:52 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Faith Lihobaba <tbla@oiia.ru> - 2026-10-15 18:11 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 08:43 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 17:09 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 18:44 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-04 22:07 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 12:23 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:10 +0200
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-07 07:13 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 23:25 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-08 21:11 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-10 18:42 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-11 20:18 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 18:34 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:16 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 23:35 +0000
Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-06 07:45 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) Voil Babloev <ivolbe@lba.ru> - 2026-10-06 16:38 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 09:50 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 10:13 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Terence Holopov <vne@llr.ru> - 2026-10-06 17:42 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 11:25 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:13 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 10:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 21:54 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 07:45 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 10:50 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 09:51 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 16:38 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 16:25 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 09:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:34 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 18:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 08:47 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-19 02:12 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:25 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:28 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:30 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:31 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:30 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Manish Babadjanov <baam@ahbo.ru> - 2026-10-19 22:48 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-20 01:20 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 21:14 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-20 12:39 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:00 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:18 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:22 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-20 10:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:45 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 03:26 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-21 20:36 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-29 02:23 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 21:24 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 22:23 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-29 15:31 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-29 16:31 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:47 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-23 17:42 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:21 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-24 16:47 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 11:15 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:32 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:29 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-31 21:32 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:35 +0000
Electrons and photons (was: Newton and the speed of light) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 07:57 +0100
Re: Electrons and photons Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 07:27 -0800
Re: Electrons and photons Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:42 -0800
Re: Electrons and photons HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 18:50 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:36 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:28 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:42 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 18:53 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 11:13 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-11-01 14:47 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:54 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:55 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-11-01 21:20 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:10 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Cletus Rustamov <ltr@meatcelu.ru> - 2026-11-01 18:18 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-01 14:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-29 15:16 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:54 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:57 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:07 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:09 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:13 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:16 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:26 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 05:02 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 08:19 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 10:14 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 05:23 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:56 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 00:29 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 00:34 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 20:43 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 12:44 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-02 22:15 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:47 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:13 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:48 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 05:29 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:09 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:22 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:52 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 06:22 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 00:26 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 20:35 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 20:48 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Orwhin Vadeev <neo@rnhve.ru> - 2026-11-02 20:26 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 13:03 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Kishore Bakurov <aak@oueru.ru> - 2026-11-02 22:01 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 14:10 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 14:12 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 13:43 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 13:42 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 08:40 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 09:46 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:56 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 07:00 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 16:36 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 09:46 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:26 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 18:57 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 19:21 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 19:14 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Broderick Balarev <brdob@rdar.ru> - 2026-10-14 18:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:25 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:48 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-19 01:33 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-20 10:37 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:46 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-23 17:44 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-25 16:15 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 10:07 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 10:16 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 10:10 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 03:56 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:27 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 22:15 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 06:56 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-08 10:58 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 13:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 08:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 07:09 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 13:12 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-06 17:21 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 20:05 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:06 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-09 08:44 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 13:07 +0200
Page 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 11:13 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <cdGcncI_gc77Enr3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #675453 |
On 11/01/2026 10:53 AM, HenryWilson wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 21:42:22 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> On 10/31/2026 09:28 PM, HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 14:32:32 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/24/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 10/24/2026 09:47 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2026 5:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'Light' is our psychological interpretation of the way in which >>>>>>>> the stuff we call 'travelling light' reacts with our senses. >>>>>>>> Whatever travels might not actually be 'light'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting >>>>>>>>> field lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeh! Nice.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. >>>>>> >>>>>> I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, >>>>>> if any. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Well that's agreeable, the harshness of calling you an idiot is >>>>> readily belayed by open conscientiousness as an example. >>>>> >>>>> Light is free, _if metered_, propagation of information >>>> >>>> How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) >>> >>> Ah! But is the photon emitted from the electron itself or its >>> surrounding field? >>> >>>>> among _static_ systems among what is considerable as a "tetrad of >>>>> quantities", whether that's fundamental particles, forces, fields, or >>>>> otherwise for a "tetrad of quantities", >>>>> for example mass of the proton, charge of the electron, >>>>> lifetime of the neutron, and velocity of the photon, >>>>> or the usual account of strong/electrical/weak/electroweak, >>>>> about _tetrads_ of quantities and _triads_ of super-symmetries, then >>>>> that hadron physics after boson physics after electron physics is one >>>>> of those and there are each the combinations the others, about >>>>> _super-symmetry_ in a world of "running constants" that NIST PDG >>>>> CODATA advises updated every few years and that the fundamental >>>>> physical constants grow _smaller_ with higher energies of >>>>> experiments, running constants, while yet the observable physical >>>>> universe grows large, thus older, every few years, explaining why >>>>> that neither Big Bang nor Steady State are falsifiable yet either fit >>>>> the data somehow, and that neither mass nor charge are truly >>>>> fundamental themselves yet in terms of each other, helping explain >>>>> why Nature is not an Idiot and is furthermore very, very Simple. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> The usual theory of physics since Noether's theorem is that nothing is >> ever created or destroyed. >> >> Otherwise you'd need a continuity law for something like Shech and "his" >> paper about spherical cows instead of Noether and conservation law, else >> "symmetry-breaking". >> >> Then, it's also so that in usual physics that everything is a _form_ of >> energy, nothing is _pure_ energy, then that interactions make dynamics >> for things like the optoelectronic effect, which derives that photons >> are particles from that electrons are particles, "the particle conceit", >> which is a way to talk about where quantum effects begin, because >> otherwise, it would just be continuous quantities, and "atoms" would be >> infinitely small, which is more-than-less the point of "superstring >> theory", with those as smaller than "atoms" as atoms are smaller than >> us, thus, "atoms", with extra scratch-pad dimensions for whatever adds >> up, >> the, "curling up" of the dimensions, if you've heard of that. >> >> It's a continuum mechanics, .... > > In other words, Physics still has long way to go. > Rather, you're way, way behind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 14:47 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <1s3w7e7.8vs2712lgbuvN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #675416 |
Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/24/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > > On 10/24/2026 09:47 AM, HenryWilson wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> > >>> On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 10/20/2026 5:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>>> [...] > >>>>> > >>>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon? > >>>> > >>>> 'Light' is our psychological interpretation of the way in which the > >>>> stuff we call 'travelling light' reacts with our senses. Whatever > >>>> travels might not actually be 'light'. > >>>> > >>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting field > >>>>> lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: > >>>>> > >>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 > >>>>> > >>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc > >>>> > >>>> Yeh! Nice.. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. > >> > >> I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, if > >> any. > >> > > > > Well that's agreeable, the harshness of calling you an idiot > > is readily belayed by open conscientiousness as an example. > > > > Light is free, _if metered_, propagation of information > > How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) The question is based on a misunderstanding of what a 'photon' is. It is not just another tiny billiard ball, with a somehow independent existence. It is nothing but a mode in convenient expansion of the fields. As a matter of fact every accerated electron must radiate an infinte number of (soft) photons in every interaction. (this is known as 'the infra-red catastrophy', Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 08:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <u9acnbC3url183r3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #675439 |
On 11/01/2026 05:47 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/24/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 10/24/2026 09:47 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/20/2026 5:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon? >>>>>> >>>>>> 'Light' is our psychological interpretation of the way in which the >>>>>> stuff we call 'travelling light' reacts with our senses. Whatever >>>>>> travels might not actually be 'light'. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting field >>>>>>> lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeh! Nice.. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. >>>> >>>> I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, if >>>> any. >>>> >>> >>> Well that's agreeable, the harshness of calling you an idiot >>> is readily belayed by open conscientiousness as an example. >>> >>> Light is free, _if metered_, propagation of information >> >> How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) > > The question is based on a misunderstanding of what a 'photon' is. > It is not just another tiny billiard ball, > with a somehow independent existence. > It is nothing but a mode in convenient expansion of the fields. > > As a matter of fact every accerated electron must radiate an infinte > number of (soft) photons in every interaction. > (this is known as 'the infra-red catastrophy', > > Jan > > About the ultraviolet catastrophe, a point of language that is from mathematics is that "perestroikas" and "catrastrophes" are merely "openings" as that: "a singularity in a singularity theory is a branch in a multiplicity theory", and "openings" are simply, for examples, like where the non-negative integers have an opening to subtraction to make negative integers, the negative numbers have an opening to roots to make complex numbers at all, and so on, that the "infrared" and "ultraviolet" catastrophes, while usually associated with "crises" the word "catastrophes", is as well simply enough for matters of mathematical definition. So, after _Rutherford_, and about blackbody radiation, and about _spectroscopy_, and the usual idea of making discrete things among what are continuous things, is that the _catastrophe_ is the opening into the continuous from the discrete. Then, accounts of "spectra" for example these days invoke ideas like "the supercontinuum", and about basically that Faraday's "magnetizing the light, ..., in a medium" after the sodium lamp with its spectroscopic lines then made for Zeeman some six decades later about a hydrogen lamp and its one line, about that "spectra" and "second spectra" and "super-spectra" are all about that what's discrete to be fungible is continuous again since it's natural. So, spectroscopy, vis-a-vis, for example, "nuclear magnetic resonance", which is sort of the opposite, with _resonances_ above _waves_ about particle/wave duality and wave/resonance dichotomy, have it so that the "infrared & ultraviolet catastrophes" are now at least two openings, perestroikas, catastrophes, about which reductionists are entirely ignorant. So, basically you don't have negative numbers, complex numbers, or anything that results after "openings" with regards to operations that are "closed", or you do, then it's continuous to be so. Complex numbers for example admit two definitions of division, that most simply define away then call closed from within their box, of the "wet cardboard" variety, as with regards to the idea that "couldn't claw its way out of a wet cardboard box" is a usual account of futility. So, "second spectra" involves quite a few kinds of these things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 08:55 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <u9acnbO3urmC8nr3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #675446 |
On 11/01/2026 08:54 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 11/01/2026 05:47 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/24/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 10/24/2026 09:47 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/20/2026 5:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'Light' is our psychological interpretation of the way in which the >>>>>>> stuff we call 'travelling light' reacts with our senses. Whatever >>>>>>> travels might not actually be 'light'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting >>>>>>>> field >>>>>>>> lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeh! Nice.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. >>>>> >>>>> I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, if >>>>> any. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well that's agreeable, the harshness of calling you an idiot >>>> is readily belayed by open conscientiousness as an example. >>>> >>>> Light is free, _if metered_, propagation of information >>> >>> How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) >> >> The question is based on a misunderstanding of what a 'photon' is. >> It is not just another tiny billiard ball, >> with a somehow independent existence. >> It is nothing but a mode in convenient expansion of the fields. >> >> As a matter of fact every accerated electron must radiate an infinte >> number of (soft) photons in every interaction. >> (this is known as 'the infra-red catastrophy', >> >> Jan >> >> > > About the ultraviolet catastrophe, a point of language that is from > mathematics is that "perestroikas" and "catrastrophes" are merely > "openings" as that: "a singularity in a singularity theory is > a branch in a multiplicity theory", and "openings" are simply, > for examples, like where the non-negative integers have an opening > to subtraction to make negative integers, the negative numbers > have an opening to roots to make complex numbers at all, and so > on, that the "infrared" and "ultraviolet" catastrophes, while > usually associated with "crises" the word "catastrophes", is > as well simply enough for matters of mathematical definition. > > So, after _Rutherford_, and about blackbody radiation, and > about _spectroscopy_, and the usual idea of making discrete > things among what are continuous things, is that the _catastrophe_ > is the opening into the continuous from the discrete. > > > Then, accounts of "spectra" for example these days invoke ideas > like "the supercontinuum", and about basically that Faraday's > "magnetizing the light, ..., in a medium" after the sodium lamp > with its spectroscopic lines then made for Zeeman some six decades > later about a hydrogen lamp and its one line, about that "spectra" > and "second spectra" and "super-spectra" are all about that what's > discrete to be fungible is continuous again since it's natural. > > So, spectroscopy, vis-a-vis, for example, "nuclear magnetic resonance", > which is sort of the opposite, with _resonances_ above _waves_ > about particle/wave duality and wave/resonance dichotomy, > have it so that the "infrared & ultraviolet catastrophes" are > now at least two openings, perestroikas, catastrophes, > about which reductionists are entirely ignorant. > > > So, basically you don't have negative numbers, complex numbers, > or anything that results after "openings" with regards to > operations that are "closed", or you do, then it's continuous > to be so. > > > Complex numbers for example admit two definitions of division, > that most simply define away then call closed from within their > box, of the "wet cardboard" variety, as with regards to the idea > that "couldn't claw its way out of a wet cardboard box" is a > usual account of futility. > > > So, "second spectra" involves quite a few kinds of these things. > > "Ignorance is not a defense", ..., neither is lying via omission.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 21:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <1s3wyon.1t60sl04vi8okN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #675446 |
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/01/2026 05:47 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/24/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>> On 10/24/2026 09:47 AM, HenryWilson wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 10/20/2026 5:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 'Light' is our psychological interpretation of the way in which the > >>>>>> stuff we call 'travelling light' reacts with our senses. Whatever > >>>>>> travels might not actually be 'light'. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting field > >>>>>>> lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yeh! Nice.. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. > >>>> > >>>> I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, if > >>>> any. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Well that's agreeable, the harshness of calling you an idiot > >>> is readily belayed by open conscientiousness as an example. > >>> > >>> Light is free, _if metered_, propagation of information > >> > >> How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) > > > > The question is based on a misunderstanding of what a 'photon' is. > > It is not just another tiny billiard ball, > > with a somehow independent existence. > > It is nothing but a mode in convenient expansion of the fields. > > > > As a matter of fact every accerated electron must radiate an infinte > > number of (soft) photons in every interaction. > > (this is known as 'the infra-red catastrophy', > > > > Jan > > > > > > About the ultraviolet catastrophe, a point of language that is from > mathematics is that "perestroikas" and "catrastrophes" [snip more word garbage] You clearly have no idea of what this is about, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 17:10 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <OBCdncTM_uC1fnr3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #675458 |
On 11/01/2026 12:20 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 11/01/2026 05:47 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/24/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 10/24/2026 09:47 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2026 5:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'Light' is our psychological interpretation of the way in which the >>>>>>>> stuff we call 'travelling light' reacts with our senses. Whatever >>>>>>>> travels might not actually be 'light'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting field >>>>>>>>> lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeh! Nice.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. >>>>>> >>>>>> I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, if >>>>>> any. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well that's agreeable, the harshness of calling you an idiot >>>>> is readily belayed by open conscientiousness as an example. >>>>> >>>>> Light is free, _if metered_, propagation of information >>>> >>>> How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) >>> >>> The question is based on a misunderstanding of what a 'photon' is. >>> It is not just another tiny billiard ball, >>> with a somehow independent existence. >>> It is nothing but a mode in convenient expansion of the fields. >>> >>> As a matter of fact every accerated electron must radiate an infinte >>> number of (soft) photons in every interaction. >>> (this is known as 'the infra-red catastrophy', >>> >>> Jan >>> >>> >> >> About the ultraviolet catastrophe, a point of language that is from >> mathematics is that "perestroikas" and "catrastrophes" > [snip more word garbage] > > You clearly have no idea of what this is about, > > Jan > > > That's not accurate, the literature clearly has that the word "catastrophe" has that's where it's from and what it's about. It's not just "Scylla and Charybdis", or the maelstrom and the rocks. The point of that is to take the middle course, between both, since either is doom. Maybe dump GG's little read-out into your proof-reader and copy-assistant and see what it says about it. That's what my idea is of it. That said also I just introduced "Clausius catastrophe" after "Rutherford catastrophe" and then also the "Double Doppler" has been around awhile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cletus Rustamov <ltr@meatcelu.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 18:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c7vpa$249kr$1@news.nntp4.net> |
| In reply to | #675439 |
J. J. Lodder wrote: > As a matter of fact every accerated electron must radiate an infinte > number of (soft) photons in every interaction. > (this is known as 'the infra-red catastrophy', that's a quantum field theory thing? There is no proof for such fields then how would you know a photon is entangled or not
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 14:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c8bt4$2bu7d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #675450 |
Cletus Rustamov wrote: > J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> As a matter of fact every accerated electron must radiate an infinte >> number of (soft) photons in every interaction. >> (this is known as 'the infra-red catastrophy', > > that's a quantum field theory thing? There is no proof for such fields > > then how would you know a photon is entangled or not > I don't find all this focus on speed of light interesting. I'd rather look at what are considered 'maximal attainable speeds by humans.' What's the maximum speed humans can make significant portion of matter travel at? AI puts the maximum attained speed of 1 gram of matter at: 2×10^5 m/s or 0.00064c. Do you see a difference I am pointing at? Quit doing science fiction all day long and consider 'reality' for a while. You may find it to be more interesting, to you, and to your audience. -- Sometimes I just feel like I need to get away A place where I can be by myself, all alone I kinda lay down in the back yard Watch the leaves fall down on my face
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 15:16 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11bvkg8$2jh8a$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #674816 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon?
No.
Instead, a photon is a wave-like elementary excitation state of the
(quantum-)electromagnetic field, non-local before it is detected.
That field is therefore also referred to as the *photon field*:
The Science Asylum: "What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?!"
<https://youtu.be/zS2vI_2faII?si=fe7vXk3yT1TXaSDz>
And light is an excitation state of that field that propagates in space.
> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line.
Pseudoscientific nonsense.
This is a contradiction in terms: Newton's theory of gravitation where
there is a gravitational field is incompatible with a finite speed such
as that of light in vacuum.
Also, a photon does not have a position or trajectory before it is
detected. It is NOT a little energy ball.
However, the propagation of light in vacuum is described by null
geodesics of spacetime as can be seen easiest from the Minkowski metric
for a 1+3-dimensional spacetime (using signature convention −+++):
ds² = −c² dt² + dx² + dy² + dz^2.
One finds that
ds² = −c² dt² {1 − 1∕c² [(dx∕dt)² + (dy∕dt)² + (dz∕dt)²]}
= −c² dt² (1 − v²∕c²),
and since light propagates in vacuum at the speed v = c by definition,
the spacetime intervals along its path are all measured by
ds² = 0.
The proof that this path is a spacetime geodesic in general is more
complicated, but I can give it if requested.
Note that those are NOT necessarily the field lines of any
general-relativistic equivalent to the gravitational field, i.e. regions
of equal scalar spacetime curvature. In fact, a null geodesic can be
perpendicular to such a field line, for example for light leaving a star
or light falling radially into a Schwarzschild black hole.
> Plotting field lines is fun.
In order to make a correct plot, one needs to know what one is talking
about, which you clearly are not. See also:
Veritasium: "What Everyone Gets Wrong About Gravity"
<https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?si=iKu3kTMxJ1k0vTaP>
> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0
>
> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc
There is no (proper) physics to that.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 13:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c5k1v$1en6q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #675242 |
On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon?
>
> No.
>
> Instead, a photon is a wave-like elementary excitation state of the
> (quantum-)electromagnetic field, non-local before it is detected.
> That field is therefore also referred to as the *photon field*:
>
> The Science Asylum: "What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?!"
> <https://youtu.be/zS2vI_2faII?si=fe7vXk3yT1TXaSDz>
>
> And light is an excitation state of that field that propagates in space.
>
>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line.
>
> Pseudoscientific nonsense.
>
> This is a contradiction in terms: Newton's theory of gravitation where
> there is a gravitational field is incompatible with a finite speed such
> as that of light in vacuum.
>
> Also, a photon does not have a position or trajectory before it is
> detected. It is NOT a little energy ball.
>
> However, the propagation of light in vacuum is described by null
> geodesics of spacetime as can be seen easiest from the Minkowski metric
> for a 1+3-dimensional spacetime (using signature convention −+++):
>
> ds² = −c² dt² + dx² + dy² + dz^2.
>
> One finds that
>
> ds² = −c² dt² {1 − 1∕c² [(dx∕dt)² + (dy∕dt)² + (dz∕dt)²]}
> = −c² dt² (1 − v²∕c²),
>
> and since light propagates in vacuum at the speed v = c by definition,
> the spacetime intervals along its path are all measured by
>
> ds² = 0.
>
> The proof that this path is a spacetime geodesic in general is more
> complicated, but I can give it if requested.
>
> Note that those are NOT necessarily the field lines of any
> general-relativistic equivalent to the gravitational field, i.e. regions
> of equal scalar spacetime curvature. In fact, a null geodesic can be
> perpendicular to such a field line, for example for light leaving a star
> or light falling radially into a Schwarzschild black hole.
>
>> Plotting field lines is fun.
>
> In order to make a correct plot, one needs to know what one is talking
> about, which you clearly are not. See also:
Have you ever plotting field lines for an n-ary field before? I have.
Its pretty fun. Some 3d models of mine, you can explore it over on
sketchfab:
https://skfb.ly/pyP9E
https://skfb.ly/pzTEC
Give those one a go, they should fine your your end. Fwiw, an animated
one, not the same, as the "universe" experiment:
https://youtu.be/JhdZ9ReJR9w
Here is an animated 360 of one of my fields, look around:
https://youtu.be/-PUmt7i3zw4
Move it around.
> Veritasium: "What Everyone Gets Wrong About Gravity"
> <https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?si=iKu3kTMxJ1k0vTaP>
>
>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0
>>
>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc
>
> There is no (proper) physics to that.
>
A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an
n-ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 13:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <dGWdnX8-OqzryHv3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #675407 |
On 10/31/2026 01:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Instead, a photon is a wave-like elementary excitation state of the
>> (quantum-)electromagnetic field, non-local before it is detected.
>> That field is therefore also referred to as the *photon field*:
>>
>> The Science Asylum: "What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?!"
>> <https://youtu.be/zS2vI_2faII?si=fe7vXk3yT1TXaSDz>
>>
>> And light is an excitation state of that field that propagates in space.
>>
>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line.
>>
>> Pseudoscientific nonsense.
>>
>> This is a contradiction in terms: Newton's theory of gravitation where
>> there is a gravitational field is incompatible with a finite speed such
>> as that of light in vacuum.
>>
>> Also, a photon does not have a position or trajectory before it is
>> detected. It is NOT a little energy ball.
>>
>> However, the propagation of light in vacuum is described by null
>> geodesics of spacetime as can be seen easiest from the Minkowski metric
>> for a 1+3-dimensional spacetime (using signature convention −+++):
>>
>> ds² = −c² dt² + dx² + dy² + dz^2.
>>
>> One finds that
>>
>> ds² = −c² dt² {1 − 1∕c² [(dx∕dt)² + (dy∕dt)² + (dz∕dt)²]}
>> = −c² dt² (1 − v²∕c²),
>>
>> and since light propagates in vacuum at the speed v = c by definition,
>> the spacetime intervals along its path are all measured by
>>
>> ds² = 0.
>>
>> The proof that this path is a spacetime geodesic in general is more
>> complicated, but I can give it if requested.
>>
>> Note that those are NOT necessarily the field lines of any
>> general-relativistic equivalent to the gravitational field, i.e. regions
>> of equal scalar spacetime curvature. In fact, a null geodesic can be
>> perpendicular to such a field line, for example for light leaving a star
>> or light falling radially into a Schwarzschild black hole.
>>
>>> Plotting field lines is fun.
>>
>> In order to make a correct plot, one needs to know what one is talking
>> about, which you clearly are not. See also:
>
> Have you ever plotting field lines for an n-ary field before? I have.
> Its pretty fun. Some 3d models of mine, you can explore it over on
> sketchfab:
>
> https://skfb.ly/pyP9E
>
> https://skfb.ly/pzTEC
>
> Give those one a go, they should fine your your end. Fwiw, an animated
> one, not the same, as the "universe" experiment:
>
> https://youtu.be/JhdZ9ReJR9w
>
> Here is an animated 360 of one of my fields, look around:
>
> https://youtu.be/-PUmt7i3zw4
>
> Move it around.
>
>
>> Veritasium: "What Everyone Gets Wrong About Gravity"
>> <https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?si=iKu3kTMxJ1k0vTaP>
>>
>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc
>>
>> There is no (proper) physics to that.
>>
>
> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an
> n-ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm...
>
"Wavepacket formalism" usually.
The photon an instanton and soliton is usually said to be
what may be called "the force carrier" of light.
The latest dogmatic parrot-ing is usually bereft many accounts.
Many blah-blah parrot-ings don't say much,
that's called an "echo chamber",
not to be confused with "cavity resonator".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 13:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <GuGcnTLn5qfHy3v3nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #675409 |
On 10/31/2026 01:54 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 10/31/2026 01:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> Instead, a photon is a wave-like elementary excitation state of the
>>> (quantum-)electromagnetic field, non-local before it is detected.
>>> That field is therefore also referred to as the *photon field*:
>>>
>>> The Science Asylum: "What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?!"
>>> <https://youtu.be/zS2vI_2faII?si=fe7vXk3yT1TXaSDz>
>>>
>>> And light is an excitation state of that field that propagates in space.
>>>
>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line.
>>>
>>> Pseudoscientific nonsense.
>>>
>>> This is a contradiction in terms: Newton's theory of gravitation where
>>> there is a gravitational field is incompatible with a finite speed such
>>> as that of light in vacuum.
>>>
>>> Also, a photon does not have a position or trajectory before it is
>>> detected. It is NOT a little energy ball.
>>>
>>> However, the propagation of light in vacuum is described by null
>>> geodesics of spacetime as can be seen easiest from the Minkowski metric
>>> for a 1+3-dimensional spacetime (using signature convention −+++):
>>>
>>> ds² = −c² dt² + dx² + dy² + dz^2.
>>>
>>> One finds that
>>>
>>> ds² = −c² dt² {1 − 1∕c² [(dx∕dt)² + (dy∕dt)² + (dz∕dt)²]}
>>> = −c² dt² (1 − v²∕c²),
>>>
>>> and since light propagates in vacuum at the speed v = c by definition,
>>> the spacetime intervals along its path are all measured by
>>>
>>> ds² = 0.
>>>
>>> The proof that this path is a spacetime geodesic in general is more
>>> complicated, but I can give it if requested.
>>>
>>> Note that those are NOT necessarily the field lines of any
>>> general-relativistic equivalent to the gravitational field, i.e. regions
>>> of equal scalar spacetime curvature. In fact, a null geodesic can be
>>> perpendicular to such a field line, for example for light leaving a star
>>> or light falling radially into a Schwarzschild black hole.
>>>
>>>> Plotting field lines is fun.
>>>
>>> In order to make a correct plot, one needs to know what one is talking
>>> about, which you clearly are not. See also:
>>
>> Have you ever plotting field lines for an n-ary field before? I have.
>> Its pretty fun. Some 3d models of mine, you can explore it over on
>> sketchfab:
>>
>> https://skfb.ly/pyP9E
>>
>> https://skfb.ly/pzTEC
>>
>> Give those one a go, they should fine your your end. Fwiw, an animated
>> one, not the same, as the "universe" experiment:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/JhdZ9ReJR9w
>>
>> Here is an animated 360 of one of my fields, look around:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/-PUmt7i3zw4
>>
>> Move it around.
>>
>>
>>> Veritasium: "What Everyone Gets Wrong About Gravity"
>>> <https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?si=iKu3kTMxJ1k0vTaP>
>>>
>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0
>>>>
>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc
>>>
>>> There is no (proper) physics to that.
>>>
>>
>> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an
>> n-ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm...
>>
>
> "Wavepacket formalism" usually.
>
>
> The photon an instanton and soliton is usually said to be
> what may be called "the force carrier" of light.
>
>
>
> The latest dogmatic parrot-ing is usually bereft many accounts.
>
>
> Many blah-blah parrot-ings don't say much,
> that's called an "echo chamber",
> not to be confused with "cavity resonator".
>
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergravity
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 14:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c5l9v$1f6tf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #675409 |
On 10/31/2026 1:54 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 10/31/2026 01:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> Instead, a photon is a wave-like elementary excitation state of the
>>> (quantum-)electromagnetic field, non-local before it is detected.
>>> That field is therefore also referred to as the *photon field*:
>>>
>>> The Science Asylum: "What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?!"
>>> <https://youtu.be/zS2vI_2faII?si=fe7vXk3yT1TXaSDz>
>>>
>>> And light is an excitation state of that field that propagates in space.
>>>
>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line.
>>>
>>> Pseudoscientific nonsense.
>>>
>>> This is a contradiction in terms: Newton's theory of gravitation where
>>> there is a gravitational field is incompatible with a finite speed such
>>> as that of light in vacuum.
>>>
>>> Also, a photon does not have a position or trajectory before it is
>>> detected. It is NOT a little energy ball.
>>>
>>> However, the propagation of light in vacuum is described by null
>>> geodesics of spacetime as can be seen easiest from the Minkowski metric
>>> for a 1+3-dimensional spacetime (using signature convention −+++):
>>>
>>> ds² = −c² dt² + dx² + dy² + dz^2.
>>>
>>> One finds that
>>>
>>> ds² = −c² dt² {1 − 1∕c² [(dx∕dt)² + (dy∕dt)² + (dz∕dt)²]}
>>> = −c² dt² (1 − v²∕c²),
>>>
>>> and since light propagates in vacuum at the speed v = c by definition,
>>> the spacetime intervals along its path are all measured by
>>>
>>> ds² = 0.
>>>
>>> The proof that this path is a spacetime geodesic in general is more
>>> complicated, but I can give it if requested.
>>>
>>> Note that those are NOT necessarily the field lines of any
>>> general-relativistic equivalent to the gravitational field, i.e. regions
>>> of equal scalar spacetime curvature. In fact, a null geodesic can be
>>> perpendicular to such a field line, for example for light leaving a star
>>> or light falling radially into a Schwarzschild black hole.
>>>
>>>> Plotting field lines is fun.
>>>
>>> In order to make a correct plot, one needs to know what one is talking
>>> about, which you clearly are not. See also:
>>
>> Have you ever plotting field lines for an n-ary field before? I have.
>> Its pretty fun. Some 3d models of mine, you can explore it over on
>> sketchfab:
>>
>> https://skfb.ly/pyP9E
>>
>> https://skfb.ly/pzTEC
>>
>> Give those one a go, they should fine your your end. Fwiw, an animated
>> one, not the same, as the "universe" experiment:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/JhdZ9ReJR9w
>>
>> Here is an animated 360 of one of my fields, look around:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/-PUmt7i3zw4
>>
>> Move it around.
>>
>>
>>> Veritasium: "What Everyone Gets Wrong About Gravity"
>>> <https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?si=iKu3kTMxJ1k0vTaP>
>>>
>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0
>>>>
>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc
>>>
>>> There is no (proper) physics to that.
>>>
>>
>> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an
>> n-ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm...
>>
>
> "Wavepacket formalism" usually.
>
>
> The photon an instanton and soliton is usually said to be
> what may be called "the force carrier" of light.
>
>
>
> The latest dogmatic parrot-ing is usually bereft many accounts.
>
>
> Many blah-blah parrot-ings don't say much,
> that's called an "echo chamber",
> not to be confused with "cavity resonator".
>
>
Can light (say photons) flow down the field such that we can see things
in space that we should not be able to see? Gravitational lensing?
Now, I cannot simulate an infinitely dense field. I can only make a fine
granularity to my fields before my computer says it wants to snuff it.
Btw, creating a field line is basically integrating the line. But, there
are infinite lines to calculate!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 14:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c5ldf$1f6tf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #675407 |
On 10/31/2026 1:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Instead, a photon is a wave-like elementary excitation state of the
>> (quantum-)electromagnetic field, non-local before it is detected.
>> That field is therefore also referred to as the *photon field*:
>>
>> The Science Asylum: "What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?!"
>> <https://youtu.be/zS2vI_2faII?si=fe7vXk3yT1TXaSDz>
>>
>> And light is an excitation state of that field that propagates in space.
>>
>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line.
>>
>> Pseudoscientific nonsense.
>>
>> This is a contradiction in terms: Newton's theory of gravitation where
>> there is a gravitational field is incompatible with a finite speed such
>> as that of light in vacuum.
>>
>> Also, a photon does not have a position or trajectory before it is
>> detected. It is NOT a little energy ball.
>>
>> However, the propagation of light in vacuum is described by null
>> geodesics of spacetime as can be seen easiest from the Minkowski metric
>> for a 1+3-dimensional spacetime (using signature convention −+++):
>>
>> ds² = −c² dt² + dx² + dy² + dz^2.
>>
>> One finds that
>>
>> ds² = −c² dt² {1 − 1∕c² [(dx∕dt)² + (dy∕dt)² + (dz∕dt)²]}
>> = −c² dt² (1 − v²∕c²),
>>
>> and since light propagates in vacuum at the speed v = c by definition,
>> the spacetime intervals along its path are all measured by
>>
>> ds² = 0.
>>
>> The proof that this path is a spacetime geodesic in general is more
>> complicated, but I can give it if requested.
>>
>> Note that those are NOT necessarily the field lines of any
>> general-relativistic equivalent to the gravitational field, i.e. regions
>> of equal scalar spacetime curvature. In fact, a null geodesic can be
>> perpendicular to such a field line, for example for light leaving a star
>> or light falling radially into a Schwarzschild black hole.
>>
>>> Plotting field lines is fun.
>>
>> In order to make a correct plot, one needs to know what one is talking
>> about, which you clearly are not. See also:
>
> Have you ever plotting field lines for an n-ary field before? I have.
> Its pretty fun. Some 3d models of mine, you can explore it over on
> sketchfab:
>
> https://skfb.ly/pyP9E
>
> https://skfb.ly/pzTEC
>
> Give those one a go, they should fine your your end. Fwiw, an animated
> one, not the same, as the "universe" experiment:
>
> https://youtu.be/JhdZ9ReJR9w
>
> Here is an animated 360 of one of my fields, look around:
>
> https://youtu.be/-PUmt7i3zw4
>
> Move it around.
>
>
>> Veritasium: "What Everyone Gets Wrong About Gravity"
>> <https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?si=iKu3kTMxJ1k0vTaP>
>>
>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc
>>
>> There is no (proper) physics to that.
>>
>
> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an n-
> ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm...
>
The light is also influenced by the gravitational field. Basically, the
light is beholden to it. Take a strong black hole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 14:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c5llv$1fan4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #675413 |
On 10/31/2026 2:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/31/2026 1:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> Instead, a photon is a wave-like elementary excitation state of the
>>> (quantum-)electromagnetic field, non-local before it is detected.
>>> That field is therefore also referred to as the *photon field*:
>>>
>>> The Science Asylum: "What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?!"
>>> <https://youtu.be/zS2vI_2faII?si=fe7vXk3yT1TXaSDz>
>>>
>>> And light is an excitation state of that field that propagates in space.
>>>
>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line.
>>>
>>> Pseudoscientific nonsense.
>>>
>>> This is a contradiction in terms: Newton's theory of gravitation where
>>> there is a gravitational field is incompatible with a finite speed such
>>> as that of light in vacuum.
>>>
>>> Also, a photon does not have a position or trajectory before it is
>>> detected. It is NOT a little energy ball.
>>>
>>> However, the propagation of light in vacuum is described by null
>>> geodesics of spacetime as can be seen easiest from the Minkowski metric
>>> for a 1+3-dimensional spacetime (using signature convention −+++):
>>>
>>> ds² = −c² dt² + dx² + dy² + dz^2.
>>>
>>> One finds that
>>>
>>> ds² = −c² dt² {1 − 1∕c² [(dx∕dt)² + (dy∕dt)² + (dz∕dt)²]}
>>> = −c² dt² (1 − v²∕c²),
>>>
>>> and since light propagates in vacuum at the speed v = c by definition,
>>> the spacetime intervals along its path are all measured by
>>>
>>> ds² = 0.
>>>
>>> The proof that this path is a spacetime geodesic in general is more
>>> complicated, but I can give it if requested.
>>>
>>> Note that those are NOT necessarily the field lines of any
>>> general-relativistic equivalent to the gravitational field, i.e. regions
>>> of equal scalar spacetime curvature. In fact, a null geodesic can be
>>> perpendicular to such a field line, for example for light leaving a star
>>> or light falling radially into a Schwarzschild black hole.
>>>
>>>> Plotting field lines is fun.
>>>
>>> In order to make a correct plot, one needs to know what one is talking
>>> about, which you clearly are not. See also:
>>
>> Have you ever plotting field lines for an n-ary field before? I have.
>> Its pretty fun. Some 3d models of mine, you can explore it over on
>> sketchfab:
>>
>> https://skfb.ly/pyP9E
>>
>> https://skfb.ly/pzTEC
>>
>> Give those one a go, they should fine your your end. Fwiw, an animated
>> one, not the same, as the "universe" experiment:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/JhdZ9ReJR9w
>>
>> Here is an animated 360 of one of my fields, look around:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/-PUmt7i3zw4
>>
>> Move it around.
>>
>>
>>> Veritasium: "What Everyone Gets Wrong About Gravity"
>>> <https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?si=iKu3kTMxJ1k0vTaP>
>>>
>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0
>>>>
>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc
>>>
>>> There is no (proper) physics to that.
>>>
>>
>> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an n-
>> ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm...
>>
>
> The light is also influenced by the gravitational field. Basically, the
> light is beholden to it. Take a strong black hole.
Afaict, the gravitational field is everywhere all at once.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 01:16 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c60c1$326d3$2@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #675414 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/31/2026 2:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 10/31/2026 1:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>> >>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>> >>>> There is no (proper) physics to that. >>> >>> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an n- >>> ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm... >> >> The light is also influenced by the gravitational field. Basically, the >> light is beholden to it. Take a strong black hole. > > Afaict, the gravitational field is everywhere all at once. In Newtonian mechanics. In general relativity it does not exist as such as gravitation is not understood as the consequence of a gravitational force. The deflection of light is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime, not gravitation. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 21:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <du2cncqK_67wInv3nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #675419 |
On 10/31/2026 05:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 10/31/2026 2:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 10/31/2026 1:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>> >>>>> There is no (proper) physics to that. >>>> >>>> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an n- >>>> ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm... >>> >>> The light is also influenced by the gravitational field. Basically, the >>> light is beholden to it. Take a strong black hole. >> >> Afaict, the gravitational field is everywhere all at once. > > In Newtonian mechanics. In general relativity it does not exist as such > as gravitation is not understood as the consequence of a gravitational > force. > > The deflection of light is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime, > not gravitation. > The Arago/Poisson spot says also that the deflection of light is due any obstruction at all, since there is a dot of light in the middle of the shadow. Light goes around obstructions, for "occult Fresnel". I.e., the Arago/Poisson spot falsifies any theory says it doesn't, then for the account that Airy's functions and the like also have it so that radio doesn't make an Arago/Poisson spot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 05:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18e3d33e82c9887a$112$3068120$4056de03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #675419 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 01:16:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 10/31/2026 2:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 10/31/2026 1:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>> >>>>> There is no (proper) physics to that. >>>> >>>> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an >>>> n- >>>> ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm... >>> >>> The light is also influenced by the gravitational field. Basically, >>> the light is beholden to it. Take a strong black hole. >> >> Afaict, the gravitational field is everywhere all at once. > > In Newtonian mechanics. In general relativity it does not exist as such > as gravitation is not understood as the consequence of a gravitational > force. > > The deflection of light is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime, > not gravitation. . ...and the 'curvature of spacetime' just happens to be a consequence of the deflection of light by gravity. Jeez! I wish I was smart like you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 08:19 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c6p6f$36r40$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #675434 |
HenryWilson wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 01:16:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> The deflection of light is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime, >> not gravitation. > . > ...and the 'curvature of spacetime' just happens to be a consequence of > the deflection of light by gravity. No. The curvature of spacetime corresponds to the energy-momentum density of spacetime, as expressed with the Einstein Field Equations: <mid:11c5vvh$32600$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Einstein_field_equations&oldid=1374672993> While light has non-zero energy, and thus contributes to the energy-momentum density of spacetime, therefore to the curvature of spacetime, its contribution is usually comparably small because the energy of a photon is given by E = ℎ f, where ℎ is the Planck constant and f is the frequency of the light, and ℎ is very small and f is usually small. However, the hypothesis has been made, first by John A. Wheeler in 1955 in his paper titled "Geons", that a black hole could be formed by concentrating enough electromagnetic energy in a region of space, which he called a "kugelblitz" (not to be confused with the atmospheric phenomenon of the same name): <https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.97.511> cited in <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kugelblitz_(astrophysics)&oldid=1377032569> > Jeez! I wish I was smart like you! You just need to make the effort of, and stop preventing yourself from, learning. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 10:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18e3e445ef04c1c2$1220$583487$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #675436 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:19:41 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 01:16:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> The deflection of light is a consequence of the curvature of >>> spacetime, >>> not gravitation. >> . >> ...and the 'curvature of spacetime' just happens to be a consequence of >> the deflection of light by gravity. > > No. The curvature of spacetime corresponds to the energy-momentum > density of spacetime, as expressed with the Einstein Field Equations: > > <mid:11c5vvh$32600$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Einstein_field_equations&oldid=1374672993> > > While light has non-zero energy, and thus contributes to the > energy-momentum density of spacetime, therefore to the curvature of > spacetime, its contribution is usually comparably small because the > energy of a photon is given by E = ℎ f, where ℎ is the Planck constant > and f is the frequency of the light, and ℎ is very small and f is > usually small. > > However, the hypothesis has been made, first by John A. Wheeler in 1955 > in his paper titled "Geons", that a black hole could be formed by > concentrating enough electromagnetic energy in a region of space, which > he called a "kugelblitz" (not to be confused with the atmospheric > phenomenon of the same name): Great story...rediculously complicated and totally unnecessary. > <https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.97.511> > > cited in > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Kugelblitz_(astrophysics)&oldid=1377032569> > >> Jeez! I wish I was smart like you! > > You just need to make the effort of, and stop preventing yourself from, > learning. I am to busy writing the truth for future physicists to learn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web